Donald Shoup Calls San Francisco Parking Meter Study “Pathbreaking”

With the debate about parking meter rates and hours raging on both sides of the Bay, Streetsblog called UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking and arguably the world's foremost parking expert, and asked him his opinion on the new San Francisco MTA parking meter study, which was released on Tuesday and calls for increasing meter hours in commercial districts where parking occupancy rises above 85 percent and where businesses are open late on weekdays and on Sundays.

Professor Shoup had read the study and called it "pathbreaking," lauding the MTA for being thorough and data-driven and for embracing occupancy targets for managing parking supply.

Professor Shoup also re-iterated the importance of Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) as a tool for selling parking reform to the public. In CBDs, a portion of the new meter revenue collected in commercial districts is returned to that district for sidewalk repair, street trees, enhanced street cleaning, etc., so that businesses can see firsthand how parking revenue improves their streets.

MTA Chief Nat Ford told Streetsblog his agency is not yet ready to have that discussion, and further complications arise because the Department of Public Works is responsible for maintaining sidewalks. How and when an arrangement between the two agencies would be brokered is anyone's guess.

Professor Shoup also pointed to Redwood City, Ventura, and Old Pasadena for best practice examples of occupancy-based parking policy changes that have revitalized neighborhoods and facilitated business. Read his full comments after the jump.

What do you think about the public backlash when the City of Oakland raised meter rates and extended meter times citywide?Well, I hope that Oakland hasn't poisoned the well for parking reform. I think their ham-handed approach caused a lot of horror. They simply raised prices citywide without any explanation of what the principles used for pricing were. I think that San Francisco's policy is far more sophisticated, user friendly, and well thought out. I think there's no comparison between what Oakland did and the fiasco that followed and what San Francisco is doing.

Were you surprised at how upset people were in Oakland?Well, no. Some of the same thing happened in LA. They upped the price citywide by a minimum of one dollar and extended some hours and they thought people would simply assume it was a good idea. I think they should tailor parking prices very carefully to the time and the place and not have a citywide blanket ordinance saying we're going to raise everything everywhere.

What are your impressions of the MTA's new parking meter study?It's pathbreaking. There's never been anything like it anywhere before. I think they've done the right thing to say, 'we're aiming for an occupancy rate.' You want the spaces to be well used, but readily available. Well used means almost full, but readily available means not quite full. You have to be very careful to make sure you get that right. They're willing to adjust it if they get it wrong. I think the right price for parking is sort of like the Supreme Court's definition for pornography: I know it when I see it. There's no way to say the price is right except by looking at the result and San Francisco is committed to change the price wherever they get it wrong.

I think they did it with a very careful goal in mind and that is: set
the lowest possible price they could charge and still have spaces
available on every block. So that's different prices at different
times of the day and at different locations, but I think if they aim for
this policy, if they've chosen the lowest price they can charge and
still have available spaces, it means if they go any lower, all the
spaces will be filled and people will say there's no place to park. And if they go higher than that, there will be a lot of vacant spaces. Some of the supply will be mismanaged.

How important are Community Benefit Districts for selling parking reform to the public?Well, I think it is the key to getting political support. As you probably know, Redwood City has this policy and Ventura in Southern California, they just started it. From the merchants' point of view, they think that the revenue return is the most important part of the entire policy. They realize that it's going to cut down on cruising and maybe greenhouse gas emissions, but the important thing to them is seeing improvements right in front of their businesses. Without that it seems to be hard to support the idea.

It's also true in Washington DC. They installed it around a new ballpark and they returned 75 percent of the revenue to the metered districts. And this can be for transportation improvements. I think that something visible and sharing with the community is very important. If they don't do that it's hard to show and prove and have pictures of the benefits.

I think it's important for getting people to understand the workings of the program. I don't think the community benefit district will change anything about the right price for parking. I do, however, think they will make the policies seem much more reasonable to everybody. If they use the money to make sidewalk improvements, one of the most important transportation pieces of infrastructure in San Francisco. I think the sidewalks are almost as important as the bus system. If they said we'll use some of the money to improve the sidewalks and the streetscapes on the metered streets, everybody would see that the city is giving back something and not just taking. I think if you give back something that's very visible and very valuable, the metered communities will see the benefits right in front of their eyes. Everybody wants better bus service and more frequent bus service, but that's hard to see, especially if you're a struggling merchant. I think that it's easy to see very clean sidewalks, very well-policed sidewalks in front of your restaurant, rapid responses to any cracks in your sidewalks, maybe much more frequent cleaning.

Some businesses complain that extending meter hours or raising
rates will drive customers away, that they'll go to suburban malls
where parking is plentiful and free. How do you contend with that
assertion?You have to emphasize that the pricing is to keep the
spaces almost entirely, but not quite, full. So you can't say the
people are being chased away if almost all the spaces are full almost
all of the time. You just wonder, where are they being chased? For
the businesses, the important thing is that people are being chased
away because the spaces will be occupied, but they will be occupied by
people who will be willing to pay for parking if they can easily find a
space.

If I were a waiter working in a restaurant, who do you think
would leave a bigger tip, someone who will come only if they can find a
free parking space after they have driven around long enough to find
it, or someone that who is willing to pay for parking if they can
easily find a space? I think the person that is willing to pay
for parking is more willing to leave a bigger tip or pay more at a
store or bring more business to the area than somebody who wants to be
a freeloader and just won't come to your neighborhood unless they can
get free parking. When you think about it, the kind of customers
you're going to get is probably a little bit more free-spending if they
can easily find a space and they're willing to pay for parking.

In
terms of the economics of it, Old Pasadena simply took off economically
the year they installed meters. The sales-tax revenue is about six
times higher than it was when they put in the meters in 1992. That is
because, at least in Old Pasadena, the meter money has greatly improved
the public infrastructure of that neighborhood. In San Francisco,
they're talking about using most of the money for public transit, so
there won't be the physical improvements. You're probably attracting a
more free-spending group of customers and maybe more carpools, because
they'll be splitting the cost of the curb parking. Maybe two dollars
an hour won't seem like such a punitive payment if there are four
people in the car and they're staying in an area for four hours. The
solo driver will object to paying for parking. But if I were a business
person, I'd rather see the cars arriving with four people in them
rather than one.

What should San Francisco, or any city trying to reform parking policy, do about time limits?The other thing I think that San Francisco is doing and that Redwood City did and that Ventura has done is eliminate any time limits on the meters. They removed the time limits and they rely on pricing to create turnover and vacancies and this has been the most popular part of the policy in Redwood City. People now don't have to worry -- a driver and three friends want to go for dinner some place and they park -- they don't have to worry that they have to get back to their meter in an hour or two hours. Whatever they're doing, they don't feel like they're pushed around so much by the city. It still creates a lot of turnover because the price is higher, but the user is more in control of their life than when somebody who manages meters says you can only stay here for an hour or two hours.

The advantage of using prices to manage parking is that you don't need to have these arbitrary time limits. I think when people say they're going to run meters in the evening, it seems ridiculous because people want to park once and walk around for the evening. Turnover is not important for that, but pricing is important to make sure that some of the spaces remain available. So I would say that whenever you talk about running the meters in the evening, you have to say there's no time limit on them. You can put enough money in to stay for the entire evening, park once and go to dinner, a movie, a bar, and then walk around for as long as you want. You have to break this automatic assumption that a meter means that you have to leave in an hour or two hours.

If you were the head of the MTA, what would you do with the study, how would you adjust the meters?I
don't think you want someone from Los Angeles telling you [what to do
in San Francisco].

What does seem to be happening in San Francisco is
the MTA itself seems to be like the revenue recipient who has a
political incentive to set the meter rates higher. They act like
businesses in smaller areas, in the sense that they're the political
force behind this. They're like a big interest group who happens to
receive the revenue. I think it's because of the fact that the MTA
gets the revenue that this whole thing is happening. Somebody who is
politically powerful and has a legitimate claim on the revenue and they
use it for very valuable purposes and they want the money. So I think
it's worked out fairly well in San Francisco. If the meter money went
into the general fund, rather than the MTA, I don't think we'd be
having this conversation.

I think they should run [the meters]
until there's no need to run them. Some places they might have to run 24-hours a day if the spaces would be full otherwise. But they should be the lowest price they can charge and
they should eliminate the time limits. If at 3 am, all the spaces are
full, the price is too low. But if at eight in the morning three
quarters of the spaces are empty, the price is too high. I don't think
anybody should say it will stop at midnight or it will stop at 10 or 9
or 8. It just depends on what happens if you stop charging. As you
know, it's a mess in San Francisco, the traffic is congealed with cars
circling the blocks in some parts of the city.

In the MTA study, during metered hours, Columbus Avenue had
71-81 percent occupancy. Does that mean the meter prices are too high?
Yes, I think it's quite common for meter prices to be too high,
especially in the morning. Definitely on some days and at some hours
the prices will definitely come down.

Is 85 percent occupancy target a firm benchmark? Are there situations where you want more or less occupancy?
Well, it's short-hand. It just means you shouldn't have too much of an
hour that is totally full. You shouldn't have much of an hour that is
less than 70 percent, but somewhere around 85 percent. Sometimes it's
going to be higher and sometimes its going to be absolutely full. What
you'll see is variation around 85 percent, but I think what you mainly
want is to make sure it isn't full more than 10 or 15 minutes out of
any hour.

Are we creating a higher addiction to cars – and will this delay a congestion charge ever being established? Will the parking meters be “smart” and adjust based upon demand? I think that’s what the SF Port’s meters are intended to do, but I don’t know if they fluctuate rates or not frankly. There are weekend days in Rincon Hill when you can throw a bowling ball down the sides of the roads where metered parking spaces are located without hitting a parked car for some distance, yet we’re included in this “open til Midnight” on the weekend SoMa grouping.

I always favor discouraging the use of cars, but are we maybe encouraging more cars heading to San Mateo County to do their shopping and dining? Maybe.

http://postcarpress.org Justin

Jamie, I know you’re going to think I’m just being anti-car, and I’m really not here.

If consumers who prefer to/insist on using personal autos to do their shopping are encouraged to drive themselves to San Mateo by these parking policies instead of coming into our dense urban area that does not require personal motor transportation, then all the better.

You’ll still get to throw that bowling ball, and that means my walk, bike ride, or bus ride is going to be faster and easier. So will yours. AND, business will not suffer. As the study shows, the vast majority of shoppers in San Francisco are not using personal automobiles.

http://www.livablestreets.com/people/taomom taomom

Because I am cheap, having to pay more for parking will encourage me to ride my bike or take Muni. This is a good thing. There are some parts of town I almost never go to because parking is impossible (or horribly expensive) and it’s also difficult for me to get to by Muni or bicycle (North Beach, Chinatown.) I doubt evening meters would change this, but some uber-safe bikeways and secure bike parking might lure me there.

Would I go to San Mateo to shop or dine because of free parking there? I can only marvel at the question. Why would I drive to San Mateo when there are twenty excellent restaurants within a mile of my house? I won’t even drive to Colma any more to shop. Now, will folks from San Mateo refuse to come to San Francisco because they can’t park for free? That’s an entirely different question, and one that could be addressed through Bart and Caltrain if we so chose. (Lower fares in the weekends/evenings, give discounts for families and couples traveling together weekends/evenings, increase frequency and convenience, etc.)

The one thing I have trouble with concerning fluctuating rates is if I don’t know the rate ahead of time, how will I make the correct pricing decision whether it’s worth it to me to drive or not?

XC

It is frustrating for people who happen to live in areas of the city where neighborhood parking permits are not given out. I live in a building on sutter in pac heights that’s surrounded by offices and other commercial uses, so my wife has to park at a meter – which is fine between 6pm and 9am. Folks one block over get parking permits – seems unfair but I guess the line between parking districts has to be drawn somewhere.

http://sf.streetsblog.org Matthew Roth

@XC
One of the recommendations in the MTA parking study is to extend residential parking permits (RPP). You can also request the MTA expand the RPP area to include your block by following these instructions:http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pperm/17073.html

Michael Cairl

This is an outstanding discussion of an issue I’m very much involved with in Brooklyn. There’s a lot here that is transferrable to our discussion and issues. Many thanks for doing this.
There’s a pilot project being done by NYCDOT called ParkSMART, in which parking rates are increased during peak times in order to increase availability. From noon to 4 PM, the hourly rate was increased from 75 cents to $1.50. Five months into the pilot, parking availability has increased somewhat in the study zoneMerchants are divided on this, with some supporting the increase and seeing the benefits, while others fear the impact of increased parking rates on their business. Surveys that the merchants and NYCDOT did at the beginning of the pilot showed that most people did not drive to these businesses. Many people in the neighborhood do not own cars and those who do would find few places to park. I’m not a merchant and they surely know their business better than I, but I can’t help thinking their fears are overstated. One could also say that the people opposed to the higher rates want it both ways: they want more parking and they want it to be free.

I think “Justin” and “taomom” have it about right. Most people in the affected areas will continue to do business in the affected areas and not drive out of their way just for dinner or some shopping unless there is some really compelling alternative out of town.

“I always favor discouraging the use of cars, but are we maybe encouraging more cars heading to San Mateo County to do their shopping and dining? Maybe.”

I like to think the answer is no. If you live in SF, the marginal cost of driving your car to San Mateo County is probably more than you would pay in parking – but people are only vaguely aware of the gas money they are spending and generally ignore the amortized cost of oil changes and parts replacement on their cars, and are oblivious to the expected cost of a wreck or theft.

In theory, what should happen is someone that lives 6 blocks away will walk instead of driving if they have to fish for quarters if they drive. Or perhaps they will stay more local with their shopping.

I hear threats of “I will drive from Noe Valley to Potrero Hill to go to that Whole Foods because this one does not have enough parking”. I predict this threat will not be carried out. Hopefully because people start walking or heaven forbid take the 24/48 which both stop 1/2 block away.

huh

A couple points:

While I revere Professor Shoup and his work, I think his fixation on Community Benefit Districts that funnels most of meter revenue back to the neighborhood is a provincial small-town model — Redwood City, Pasadena, etc. These places are not running multi-billion dollar transportation and transit systems. Meter revenue is a major source of revenue for our transportation system. While I think some of the money should flow back to the neighborhood for cosmetic improvements and maintenance, the majority should be available to the city at large to run and manage the transportation system as necessary. Neighborhoods should not be run like enclaves or fiefdoms. They are part of a larger whole, a network. The transportation system that supports that neighborhood — whether it’s transit or roads or sidewalks or bike lanes — is a citywide system. A neighborhood is not an island. If these neighborhoods want someone to regularly steam clean their sidewalks and prune their trees, they should levy a supplementary property tax on themselves, like many areas have done. That money should not come from meters, which is transportation money.

Second, related to RPPs. One of my biggest frustrations with the program (among many) is that it screws residents who don’t have cars and have one on an infrequent or irregular basis. My neighborhood is almost entirely governed by RPPs. I don’t have a car. There have been multiple times, when, for whatever reasons, I have had to park a rental car overnight or for multiple hours, yet I can’t park in my own neighborhood because I don’t own a car full time. The process for getting a temporary RPP is ludicrously burdensome. As long as they’re not limiting the number of RPPs in a district to a specific number and basically giving them away for free (the current price is negligible), every household in the RPP zone should be entitled to have an RPP pass that they can use for whatever car they want (e.g. like a dashboard sign). Same thing with Fastrak. People in car share vehicles get screwed. You should be able to get a Fastrak that’s assigned to a person, not a vehicle, so that you can bring it in whatever vehicle you’re in.

JK

Traffic cruising for free parking — spillover — is a real problem with these metering schemes. But it would be much better addressed by more metering of residential streets not Residential Parking Permits. In dense neighborhoods there is never enough free street parking, whether there are RPPs or not. You can look at the curb space and look at the size of the apartment buildings and figure it out. In fact, the amount of curb space is probably the single largest constraint on car ownership in dense urban neighborhoods. This is why there are affluent neighborhoods in New York City in which 70% of households don’t have a car. More so, RPPs do nothing to open curb space for all of the commercial vehicles making deliveries and providing services. So, you still have guaranteed double parking.

JK

Should have said at onset, SFMTA’s report is great and exactly what other cities should be doing. It would be great to see a similar study in New York City, and maybe we will after this years mayoral election. It’s all political will, and clearly San Francisco is ahead on parking at the moment.

AW

I can appreciate Michael’s experience with ParkSMART in NYC.

However, I remain curious to Shoup’s continued reference to Redwood City as a model for parking management. When Redwood City first rolled out its parking plans, it was an extremely elaborate and complex system where occupancy would be measured every 3 months, nighttime operating hours, and rates adjusted accordingly to achieve an 85% occupancy. Now, 2 years later, the complex system has whittled down to a simple system ranging from FREE (Yes, you read that right. Way to promote alternative means of travel.) to a maximum of 50 cents an hour, with meters starting at 10 am and ending at 6 pm. Doesn’t seem particularly sophisticated anymore does it?

Huh – Like you, I question how well and to what extent the Shoup theory can be applied to a complex San Francisco.

ZA

I sure wish that any pricing system that encourages people out of their cars had a welcome mat … like acceptable bicycle facilities or renovated buses & trains. That’s how you create *habitual* riders.

http://www.livablestreets.com/people/jamie jamie

I hope it does reduce the number of cars … and reduces the need for these highways in SoMa (Folsom, Howard, Harrison, Mission) that I have to walk across every day to get back and forth to work. I’d love to see a Las Ramblas style pedestrian plaza right down the middle 3 lanes of Folsom Street from the waterfront out to South Van Ness some day … that’d be wonderful.

My comment on possibly creating more car traffic heading to San Mateo from San Francisco County is just me pondering about other costs (sales tax difference, families with strollers or seniors with mobility issues – we are an aging society after all, other special fees/taxes that end up inflating prices in San Francisco, and the possibility that neighborhood shops close with no replacement offering similar goods/services) during the evening hours (post-6pm, as proposed) that may make it easier to drive south from the western side of San Francisco than to go downtown.

http://systemicfailure.wordpress.com Drunk Engineer

“These places are not running multi-billion dollar transportation and transit systems. Meter revenue is a major source of revenue for our transportation system.”

Not true. Meter revenue probably doesn’t even cover cost of enforcement. It is parking fines that bring in the big bucks. The court system should never be used as a major revenue stream because it distorts judicial impartiality. If anything, parking fine should go to California General Fund, to eliminate this conflict of interest.

By contrast, revenue from speeding tickets goes not to the city but the State. As a result, we have this screwed up sense of priorities where the city is overzealous in parking enforcement while not giving a damn about patrolling for moving violations. The reason is obvious: the city has financial motivation to go after parking violations but not the more serious problem of speeding and aggressive driving.

Uh, sorry, you’re wrong. Not even accounting for tickets, meter revenue is a substantial revenue generator for the SFMTA. Had you even BOTHERED to read the MTA meter study, you’d see that the estimated revenue is more than twice the estimated enforcment and maintenance costs, not even including any revenue from tickets. The net annual revenue benefit from their proposed meter expansion is over $8m per year (over $17 gross). That’s not small potatoes. Also, SFMTA has their annual “fact sheet” posted on their website. The FY06-07 meter haul citywide was over $30m.

Admittedly, the parking violation ticket revenue is substantial, more than meters themselves. The 06-07 parking ticket revenue was about $90m, but that includes all parking violations, not just meter violations. I would guess that non-meter-related violations are a substantial percentage, if not a majority, of that revenue (e.g. street sweeping, peak hour towaway, RPP time-limit violation, etc.).

Of course, if MTA deigned to charge something other than an insulting pittance for RPPs (currently less than $100/yr), that would be a very substantial revenue source. Of course that might demand that they actually manage on-street parking in terms of quantity and demand in residential neighborhoods, rather than just handing out permits like there’s an infinite supply.

Peter Smith

I’m glad the Shoupster banged the ‘return the money to the community’ drum, because it seems obvious to me that that should be the case. If he’s saying it, he probably has good reason to believe it — he’s actually, you know, studied this stuff a bit.

I was in Redwood City the past couple of days. Fricking. Amazing.

I can’t believe what they’ve done to that place, and what they’re doing. Right there, smack dab in the middle of Redwood Crappy City, is this little slice of Heaven. It’s a miracle. You have to go see it for yourself. It’s almost…European. I chilled outside the Chipotle for an hour or two today — people were out drinking, eating, walking, talking, playing, people-watching. Some balloon guy was walking around making the kids scream with delight. The train cruises by (a bit too loudly) every once in a while. I ran into people I knew — it was like, a place you could go and just hang out and socialize — have society and community again — give democracy a chance again. Place was bustling. Awesome.

As for the argument that SF is not Redwood City — blah. It’s just a meaningless jibe. About the same as someone saying “SF is not Portland” whenever we try to get smart with our urban planning.

Back to the revenue — the split should probably be 50% back to the neighborhood/sidewalk/streetscape, 25% to end homelessness, and 25% for bike and transit infrastructure. Now, giving revenue back to the community is super-important for political support (obvious), but it’s an absolute must if you believe in the Green Transportation Hierarchy — which I do. SF’s pedestrian infrastructure is garbage. I don’t care what WalkScore says, and I don’t care if we’re still better than every other US city, I want better places to walk, and that’s gonna take money. Walking is just like cycling — you have to make it possible for people to walk, in a dignified fashion, to their destinations. Once you make it possible, you’ll see a mode shift. After you make it possible, then you can work on making it desirable/attractive/inspiring/uplifting/etc. — and we should do all of those things. When you return money to the community in this way, for improving the pedestrian realm, you’re spending a whole pile of cash on the most important mode of transportation that exists — and that’s exactly what we should be doing — make the pedestrian environment frickin fantastic, and before you know it, you might have a decent place to live/work/be.

Ending homelessness should be desirable because we should want to be a decent people in a decent society, but if that’s not enough of a reason, then think of how much the pedestrian and transit environments improve when we end homelessness, and the many problems that go with homelessness – drug addiction/mental illness/urine/crime/etc. Any serous walk or transit advocate must, in my opinion, also be an advocate to end homelessness.

Finally, with the remaining money, improve biking and then transit, in that order. Spending gajillions of dollars on relatively-expensive motorized transit without first spending a few bucks on walking and biking infrastructure doesn’t make much sense to me. We need lots more bike parking, new bike corrals, subsidize parking racks for any business that wants some, etc. — those bike/transit dollars can go a _long way_ with bike infrastructure.

I’m not sure of the reasoning/pricing behind residential parking permits, but $76 to have a place to park your car in SF 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, for an entire year? Sheesh — that figure needs to be $500 or $1,000, and possibly more. Drivers in this town have gotten a free ride for far too long. That’s going to end.

http://www.livablestreets.com/people/Green_Idea_Factory Todd Edelman

Regarding carshare and RPP, how about if RPP areas had carshare-only meters? Of course this would require new legislation to create a special classification for carshare automobiles, which would be needed for creating the permits.

OR could a bunch of carshare operators (perhaps also classic rental car operators) simply buy their own meters and install them next to parking spaces in RPP areas, just as they do… wait, don’t they do this already, just without the meters, or are all their cars in lots?

What do you think about Park Circa (www.parkcirca.com)? One con is that it may delay the “pain point” that discourages driving. But if people are driving anyway, which many do (see below), and end up circling the block 20 minutes till they find parking, might this actually help reduce traffic and emissions? Drivers can see before hand if parking exists, so they know whether or not to make that trip to the restaurant, or visit that friend across town.

I definitely support reducing traffic, and reducing reliance on personal automobiles. I think a livable city would allow people to do everything on foot or bike, or occasionally get across town on efficient public transportation. But if we are honest with ourselves, we are increasing the pain without enough legitimate alternatives for many types of people in many types of trips. Until it’s safe for my kids to ride across town without being afraid they’ll be killed, until there are options for a parent to take their 2 kids to 2 different schools and still have time to get to work, or possible for the elderly to get around town (they aren’t going to walk very or bike), or any other number of scenarios, then we have to admit the alternatives are not sufficient yet.

Until we have alternatives that work for everyone, many people still “need” a car, and there is a time between now and sometime in the future, when people will continue relying on the car, and we need to make that transition work (not make it painful without giving people something better to choose).

http://bill@mistwholesale.com Bill h

Hello, Tom my company distributes wholesale misting equipment for outdoor cooling and insect control, two unique and niche markets that have been around for decades. I was on http://livablecity.org and felt like your company Transportation-A Livable City might be a good fit to become a dealer of our products and residual service business that our products create. A typical dealer will enjoy 35% to 65% profit margins on the installation of the equipment to homeowners and businesses in your market, as well as anywhere from $400 to $1200 per installation annually on the service side of the business for maintenance and refills, (on average). Like most other businesses that are still in business, you’ve probably adapted your business model to encompass a larger product or service offering. We hope you’ll consider looking at our products to add to your business model. Please visit http://www.mistwholesale.com for more info.

Recently Posted Jobs

Word On The Street

“The fact we cannot say definitively that ticketing cyclists for not making full and complete stops necessarily decreases injuries or otherwise reduces collisions gets to the very heart of the issue: Sanford's impending crackdown is not data-driven...
And all the while, this crackdown will better enable motorists near and far to continue, without consequences, to commit the five traffic violations that the data clearly shows us are causing the greatest harm to the most road users.
Bias, bias, bias.”